Jackson Jambalaya

The morons in the legislature won't be guided by reason, but they'll concede to anything if Strickland and Bjork tell them current laws impede post-season prospects of our universities.

"Essentially, the NCAA legislation will require more paperwork, which, in effect, says, 'Although our state has passed this law, we choose not to enforce it on our campus.'”

And this is why we don't look to sports reporters for legal opinions.

The paperwork will actually say, in effect: "Although our state has passed this law, we choose not to use its protections, notwithstanding the fact that if we chose to use its protections, as a state entity, we could only do so legally if we ensured that an individual could still get the service he/she desired with no delay. But we're talking about attending a sports event, so HB1523 is only relevant in contorted hypothetical situations with no relationship whatsoever to real-life. MYOB & FO."

Thank you 9:45 for clearing that up :-)

9:45 is spot-on. Rick's legal opinion (colored by his liberal politics) is akin to people presuming that Not Guilty equals Innocent. This is a simple fix for the schools.

Just another example of politicians mixing politics and religion with the end being what people predicted but politician really didn't care.

11:59, in your opinion, which is worse: Mixing politics with religion or mixing politics with education or mixing politics with sporting events?

1:23, why should politics be mixed with anything else? We have a big enough mess with politics by itself. Mixing in anything is just more fertilizer on the pile.

Ben -- You really should consult an attorney who practices in higher ed before offering your opinion. The "ensuring service" provisions of HB 1523 apply only to circuit clerks and judges. They do not apply, for example, to university-employed counselors, physicians, or support staff. These employees could deny service and universities would be under no obligation to provide any accommodation. I agree this likely would be tangentially related to sporting events, but "we choose not to enforce it" --i.e., "we choose not to exercise our legal right to be awful, bigoted people"--is at least as accurate a summary as yours, but more succinct.

Why did our leaders waste time on such stuff as this? They should have know better. I can't really blame it on religion as people who would support this crap are not religious people, they are imposters at the best and scum at the worst.

I love all the comments on here that are obviously by people that have not bothered to read or understand the law - but still are experts on what the university can or cannot do.

Personally I think the law stunk as a process to come out of the legislature. But there is absolutely nothing in HB1523 that affects any of the universities unless there is proposed to be a marriage ceremony involved and the university chooses not to allow it for personal religious reasons. In that case, the state cannot take 'any discriminatory action against' the person who makes the decision regarding the wedding.

Someone of you experts please give support to your arguments:

@3:24, the counseling etc that you refer to applies to individuals that refuse to provide the counseling in cases of 'provision of treatments, counseling, or surgeries related to sex reassignment or gender identity transitioning" (Section 3 (4) - lines 61 thru 70). I doubt that such action would come into play on any of the university campuses so that does not have any relation to the matter at hand.

@Ben Matlock: Not even an issue regarding paperwork much less the university having to ignore the law. All the statute does relative to governmental bodies or employees is provide that anyone who decides to "establish sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming, or concerning access to restrooms, spas, baths, showers, dressing rooms, locker rooms, or other intimate facilities or settings based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" - the state government will not take any discriminatory action against such person. (Section 3 (6) - lines 89 thru 96.)

All the blather about how this bill allows for discrimination is backward. Let me suggest that you read the bill and understand it before going off half cocked - even though that is the norm for JJ readers. Again, I don't defend its passage, but in actually reading the bill rather than the CL/JFP 'reports' it actually does little or nothing in the real world.

I love all the comments on here that are obviously by people that have not bothered to read or understand the law - but still are experts on what the university can or cannot do.

When anyone opens a comment like the above they are full of crapola.

7:59 -- Wrong. The limitation you cite is for treatment or counseling by physicians. No such modifier applies to non-physician counselors. They are free to reject any client, seeking any service they provide, based on the three listed religious beliefs.

Since one of the three beliefs is "no sex before marriage," Mississippi universities can no longer fire counselors who refuse to treat people because they had sex before marriage. Which is kind of a problem in a university counseling office.

You've made other errors, but I'll let you follow your own advice, read the bill, and find them. For example, see if you can spot how the dress, grooming, and bathroom provision protects supervisors who violate Title IX.

7:59 - The chapel at MSU is frequently used for marriage ceremonies. Not sure, but I'm willing to bet there are numerous marriages on the campi of all the other universities in the state.

My opinion on this law is this: It's never a bad idea to protect people from the stink-arms of the ACLU or the Federal Justice Department. A day spent holding those people at bay is a day well spent.

10:24 - Please cite where in the new law you find a prohibition on job termination in the event of refusal by a school counselor to work with somebody who has had sex.

Using your far-fetched logic, a college admissions officer is now at liberty to refuse admission to girls who masturbated to orgasm in tenth grade.

Please count your fingers and toes so we can figure out your degree of normalcy.

Perhaps the legal scholars will explain sections 5 and 6 dealing with the right of those who feel their religious beliefs are threatened to seek relief in a court of law. It seems to all read that a judge cannot rule against them.
Does this mean any religious zealot who is easily threatened can sue and if nothing else, come away with " go away" money?
Also, since the bill says that the State can't take action against any religious organization, does this mean that polygamy is now legal in Mississippi or can a mosque enforce Shia law in this state now? It's pretty easy to form a religious organization in this country.
In 70 years I've seen two trans genders. Both were exceptionally well groomed. Neither threatened me in any way. Neither caused me to feel my soul was at risk or that I couldn't go to church or had to stop believing whatever I wanted to believe. That is not true of some self anointed preachers accosting me on the street telling me I'd go to Hell if I don't think like they think.
Perhaps if our legislators stopped going to strip clubs and gay bars they wouldn't have felt the need to pass this stupid bill.

And, so we shouldn't worry about the letter the Justice Dept sent to N.C.'s governor ?
Mississippi can survive without federal funding of any kind, right?

The drum beats of our next Civil War grow louder. Won't be States vs States this time.

Its a shame NCAA officials throw political agendas on college athletics.

3:58 -- Again, your example about admissions is wrong. There are eight substantive areas where the three protected beliefs get privileged status. Mercifully, admissions is not one of them.

To answer your question, read (1) The section on physicians and counselors, where you will find that the clause limiting protection to "reassignment," etc. is separated by an "or," after which you will find a general permission to deny "counseling" based on religious beliefs with no such limitation; then (2) the section defining the term "discrimination," which includes termination from employment and much more, then (3) the section stating that a person otherwise qualified to work in a given profession but for their decision to discriminate under this bill (which would disqualify counselors under their profession's ethical rules) will be treated as qualified for employment.

You could not write a more explicit protection of state-employed counselors who don't want to serve LGBT individuals if you tried.

Can't wait until that letter comes from the Justice Dept. Then we will see if the people really are religious. For some reason I think they will forget all about their religion.

The NCAA legislation is an obvious response to laws like the recently passed Mississippi HB 1523, signed by Governor Phil Bryant last month. That law, which goes into effect July 1, allows private businesses, along with government workers, to deny services and goods to the LGBT community (or anyone, really) based on religious beliefs.

Rick Cleveland--don't believe the law is that broad-- only in context of marriage.

@9:54 - please provide one part of the bill that allows private businesses the right to deny services and goods to the LGBT community. It does allow them to not do so in relation to a marriage ceremony. There is no other such provision on the broad scale you state.

I'll wait for your citation from the actual statute - not from a CL article or JFP editorial.

Then why does it affect Division II regional sports and not Div I?

Noticed a certain sameness in approach between pastured Cleveland's and pastured Salter's columns. They've been kicked to the curb by Corporate Democrats but somehow want to pretend it didn't happen and they've inexplicably remained relevant.

Neither of them are as remotely HOT and SEXY as Anna Wolfe!